OK. As many of you will already know, I’ve taken down two blogs in the last few weeks, something I don’t like doing. However, I’m not keen on being sued or seeing out my declining years in a lonely prison cell, so I’ve erred on the side of caution by removing them.
In the light of which, a few points.
- Anyone who guest-blogs for me takes full and sole responsibility for what they write. Most know this already, but I need to underscore it very clearly.
- The same applies to comments made by anyone. You are fully and solely responsible for your own words.
- Leaving aside the legal implications, as I’ve mentioned before, I want this site to be a place where civilized discussion takes place, not a place for insult, abuse and/or defamatory statements.
- I’ve arranged things so it is easier for those commenting to have their comment appear. I expect those commenting to respond to this change with a degree of self-responsibility.
Leaving aside the legal implications, as I’ve mentioned before, I want this site to be a place where civilized discussion takes place, not a place for insult, abuse and/or defamatory statements. I’ve arranged things so it is easier for those commenting to have their comment appear. I expect those commenting to respond to this change with a degree of self-responsibility.
And maybe a good place to begin would be to stop making personal comments about other people.
It is perfectly easy to discuss issues without being personal.
I see nothing wrong with making personal comments about other people. For example I might say ‘PF (whoever s/he is) is an outstandingly fine human being.” Or I might say “Yesterday at 4.00 pm I saw X coming out of a pub.” To avoid comment relating to people would absurd as well as impossible. What is called for is truth, not insults and/or defamatory remarks.
Well, we’re not exactly over-run with a plethora of praise, and it’s a deviation from facts which usually means we cross the line between what is and what is not acceptable; so I would have though my comments were obvious enough.
Just recently I was subject to lengthy speculation about the kind of person someone thought I was, beginning to the effect, ‘you strike me as the kind of person who…’. That’s out of order.
Don’t agree PF. I see no harm in speculating on the make up of a fellow arguer and that’s why you are provided with the facility to answer back.
I see no good in it.
If I make an argument it is either good or bad and should be responded to (or ignored) on its merits.
Whether someone thinks I am a precious sensitive darling (I am) or a hardened cynic, is beside the point.
And it invariably descends into abuse and end of argument.
That is why slugger clamps down on manplaying.
I agree that it can go overboard but there is a difference between you dyed in the wool orange b-st-rd and I think you are an intransigent unionist. Trick is to hit right note. I doubt if a blog will change our opinions but an exchange of ideas can only be useful when re unification comes.
I note a blogger on Slugger MacFool says that this site is peopled by ‘slack-jawed republicans’. I also advise against late night posting under the affluence. I think that we are all mature? enough to take part in the cut and thrust (or in MT’s case the cut and paste) of political fencing. Anybody who is a precious sensitive little darling should avoid all occasions of injury or insult.
I apologise for my childish pedantry above (or below) it was uncalled for and note in the spirit of the blog that Dr C wishes for.
To reinforce your point I was indeed under the influence at the time of writing it.
*not in the spirit…
A G – I always had a sneaking regard for you. Now the sneaking is over. MAITH THÚ!
whos judging.its a sad state of affairs when we cant use our everyday language without some leftie crying racist.how can it be used on other social media pages and even receive likes,
The whole issue is a bit too broad for throw away remarks.
In the first instance, per. yesterday’s post on the matter, I should be of opinion that referring to someone as Unionist in a blog is not insulting nor illegal. The unfortunate fact is, despite the law contained in 2000/31/EC being relatively clear, the alternative jurisdiction, the Court of Human Right’s, Grand Chamber did, in 2015, find that the right to Freedom of Expression was somewhat limited in the on-line fields, obviously not bound by the above Directive in the Case Delfi AS v. Estonia (2015).
Even President Obama dared not cross the First Amendment, though he did attempt to with SOPA, why the arrogant ECHR GC feels the need to restrict Freedom of Expression, simply because some person has had their feelings hurt, is quite beyond my comprehension but, as before, this is, at least for now, here, the law.
Unlike the above case, Jude is not an ISP however, his blog might well be considered as liable, despite what is written above disclaiming offensive posting of an individual.
I should suggest that this blog, and admit it, we all enjoy a good argument, I love PF, and FTQ, would be a loss were it removed, perhaps Jude may be better re-instating the older system of pre-monitoring posts. I do think it is covered under the Directive supra but the alternative jurisdiction appears to feel otherwise, so much for Constitutional rights.
I remember when the Charlie Hebdo incident took place that there was an international outcry culminating in the leaders of the Western world descending on Paris, in the interests of “free speech”. I understand, Jude, why you have made the decision you have but I trust this is not the thin edge of the wedge in attempts to silence dissent.
we already have that.